logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.07.10 2018나41396
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) ordering payment is revoked.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, which was established around April 1, 2013, was the head of the EGyeongnam Branch in Gangseo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “Seoul Branch”) located in Gangseo-gu, Busan. The Plaintiff was the head of the Gyeongnam Branch, and the Plaintiff’s wife L was the head of the office.

B. The operation of the above Gyeongnam branch was conducted in the form of establishment of affiliated stores and management of sales of affiliated stores under the contract with the Gyeongnam branch office (hereinafter “the main office”). The operation of the Gyeongnam branch was conducted in the form of 5% of the sales and distribution expenses of each member store from the head office.

C. Money transactions with the Gyeongnam branch office and the head office were conducted through the Gyeongnam branch office’s account (D BankF; hereinafter “business account”) under the name of the Defendant. The Defendant changed the password on July 20, 2016, and replaced the office and warehouse locking system of the Gyeongnam branch office on July 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) practically operated Gyeongnam branch office, and the Defendant is merely a nominal branch office.

around July 2016, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the scope of the business account of the Gyeongnam branch and occupied the operation rights of the Gyeongnam branch by changing the password of the business account of the Gyeongnam branch and replacing the locks of the warehouse.

Therefore, the Defendant concluded a lease contract for the office and warehouse in the name of the Defendant for unjust enrichment or damages = KRW 29,631,781 under the name of the Defendant, and paid KRW 3.5 million to the Defendant for the contract deposit for the head office paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in relation to the sale of the principal office of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on June 2014, but paid an incentive to the Defendant due to the lack of the sale conditions of the Korea Forest.

arrow